john_wall6

<p>I've happily been using a Canon FS 4000 film/slide scanner for years with Windows XP. <br>

Now I've upgraded to a computer with Windows 7 and Canon tells me that my scanner is not supported by Canon for Windows 7.<br>

So I need a new scanner. What are some good ones?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Go here and read through the discussion of F4 production. You will find a list of modifications made during production.</p>

<p>http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/j/jnwall/html/Production.htm</p>

<p>Glad to hear Ken Rockwell still has a link to this compendium of information I put together some years ago.</p>

<p>You might want to review the whole site. JNW</p>

<p>I want to make sure I can nail this kind of shot.</p><div></div>

<p>I will be using this on my D700.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 24-120 f/4 has now been out for several months. What's the verdict?</p>

<p>This was a lens that was looked forward to with lots of hopes and expectations.</p>

<p>The reviews have been all over the place. There are lots of fans who compare the image quality favorably to the 24-70 f/2.8 in their common range.</p>

<p>There are folks who say it is soft. Everyone says there is some distortion, but the verdict is that this can be fixed easily in post-processing.</p>

<p>There is vignetting at the corners when used on a full-frame camera, but the fans say all lenses do this.</p>

<p>I'm confused. My standard is the 28-105 in terms of sharpness. What is your experience? What is your verdict?</p>

<p>Eric, I'm really talking about the Sigma HSM model. I've never been impressed with Sigma's lenses, especially their build quality. But this new line seems worthy of attention.</p>

<p>You certainly do not need to make any distinction between candid and standard shots. Any good wedding photographer can take some time to make standard group shots of the wedding party in several configurations (bride/groom, b/g with bridal party, b/g with bride's family, b/g with groom's family, wedding cake, cake cutting, etc) while also shooting the events in documentary or any other style. I'd get 'em all.</p>

<p>And I'd ask the bride and groom special shots they want, special groupings, etc. If you make a nuisance of yourself, the message will get out, but if you go out of your way to do a great job for these folks, that word will get out too. Which of these two words do you think will be better for your business?</p>

<p>The real question here is whether Nikon with the D700 has achieved a level of performance, durability, and enjoyment in its use that will make its owners pause before investing in a successor model.</p>

<p>If, for example, the only differences between the D700 and its successor is the addition of video capability and perhaps one more stop of light sensitivity, I would be very hard pressed to justify moving on from a body with many years of usable life in it.</p>

<p>The D700 is a classic camera form me. I have not yet begun to realize the full potential of my D700. Barring a really significant step forward, I plan to put my extra money in lenses for some years to come.</p>

<p>My walk-around includes my D700 with a 28-105 Nikkor. If I want to go even lighter, I'd trade in the zoom for a 24 mm f/2.8 and an 85 mm f/1.8. If I had someone to carry the bag, I'd throw in my 20-35 mm f/2.8, my Tokina 28-85 f/2.8, my 80-200 f/2.8, and my 180 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Oh, and I'm John W. Wall's evil twin (see above) Nikon shooter.</p>

<p>My needs are simple. A 24-120 f/4 for FX with glass as sharp as the 28-105 variable aperture lens. Hell, I'll take a 24-105 f/4.</p>

<p>The 35-70 f/2.8 Nikkor is optically a great lens -- I used to own one -- but it has push-pull zoom.<br>

That was a deal-breaker for me. I hate using push-pull zooms.<br>

Also, the zoom range is VERY short. The rap on this lens when it was new was that you could zoom that much with your feet, a step back, a step forward, and you have the zoom range on this lens.<br>

The purist argument was that you ought to buy a 50 mm f/1.4 for less money and much more control of depth-of-field.<br>

On the other hand, the rumor mill has it that Nikon is due out with a 24-105 f/4 zoom with VR. If its as sharp as the 28-105 variable aperture zoom, I'll stand in line.</p>

<p>I live in Raleigh, NC. But I<br>

Love:<br>

London<br>

Paris<br>

Tokyo<br>

Jaipur<br>

Venice<br>

Bologna<br>

and of course NYC<br>

Hate:<br>

I hate any place I haven't been but where someone else gets great shots. I think people are people and if you can't get the shots you want its you and not the place.<br>

Want:<br>

Rome<br>

Dublin<br>

more of Asia</p>

 

<p>24-120 f/4, as sharp at the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, or sharper, with VR.</p>

<p>Nikon D700<br>

Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8<br>

Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5<br>

Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8<br>

Nikkor 24 mm f/2.8<br>

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8<br>

Nikkor 85 mm f/1.8<br>

Nikkor 180 mm f/2.8</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks so much! As a result of your help, I found my original part (in the battery pack) and found where to order another one for safety's sake. Terrific!</p>

<p>Anyone know what the parts numbers are for the covers one takes off the electrical connections on the bottom of a D700 before installing a battery pack?</p>

<p>I took mine off to add the battery pack and promptly lost them. Now I want to use the camera without the battery pack so I need the covers. I can't figure out a parts number from the owners manual.</p>

<p>Anyone know the numbers? And where these might be available? I wrote B&H and they said they do not stock them. Many thanks.</p>

<p>There are a number of ways of dealing with mats and print sizes if you want to show the full frame</p>

<p>1. only using print sizes that use your camera's side x side ratio -- for 35 mm format, 4x6, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, etc.</p>

<p>2. for mats, either put a border around the image and have the mat intrude on the border rather than the print image OR leave a space between the edge of the print and the edge of the mat.</p>

<p>Not being able to foot the bill for a D3 and loving everything else about my D700 I will learn to frame and compose my image to accommodate the odd spacing of the viewfinder.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My frustration is not with the cropped viewfinder as much as it is with the off-center viewfinder. But I gather this is something I have to get used to or change cameras. Bummer, Nikon.</p>

<p>My D700 viewfinder seems to crop the image in a frustrating way. I understand its not a 100% viewfinder -- but the viewfinder seems to show me the left side of the image, cropping a strip to the right of the image. </p>

<p>When I make an image, then look at it on the viewscreen on the back of the camera, there is a strip of image down the right side of the image that I didn't see when I was using the viewfinder to compose the image. </p>

<p>So I'm doing a vertical portrait, and I compose with my right hand -- holding the camera -- to the top, and I compose so that there is the right amount of space between the top of the subject's head and the top of the frame, and I make the picture.</p>

<p>When I look at the image I've made, suddenly there is a lot more space between the top of the subject's head and the top of the frame.</p>

<p>This doesn't happen when I compose vertically while turning the camera so my right hand is at the bottom of the camera body. So the viewfinder clearly shows less of the image to the right of the frame than to the left of the frame, where the side of the viewfinder is close to the side of the actual frame. </p>

<p>I come from the old school when it was a test of compositional skill to use the full frame of the image as it came out of the camera, without cropping the image. So I find this feature of my D700 annoying.</p>

<p>Is this a flaw in my camera or a feature of Nikon's design? Can the viewfinder be centered on the image so the same amount of image would be blocked all around the viewfinder? Should I learn to live with it or send it back to Nikon?</p>